Implementing Patriarchy without the state.

Obviously to properly implement patriarchy requires a patriarchal state, and an official state church that can combine moral pressure with official coercion.  Adultery, interfering with another man’s wife or betrothed, should be met with lethal violence which lethal violence needs to be state supported.  If we can shoot burglars, should be able to shoot adulterers.  Misbehaving women need to be locked up, runaway women need to be forcefully returned to fathers or husbands.

But there are quite a few groups that do a reasonable job with merely social pressure and illegal private violence.  In the long run, such groups will grow until they can impose their morals and religion as state church and state violence. I do not have any statistics or concrete evidence for conservative Muslims in the US, the ones that put hijabs on their daughters and marry them off at eighteen, but anecdote is that they are reproducing at a truly amazing rate.  Women are extremely vulnerable to social pressure and the threat of social exclusion.  If one woman in a social group has bastard children, or has taken her children from her husband, that enormously increase the risk that another woman in that group will have bastard children, or take her children from her husband.   They are particularly vulnerable, extraordinarily vulnerable, to male disapproval, from any male with even a modest claim to male on male status.

So:  You make sure your womenfolk do not have anything to do with filth, sluts, or trash – and especially any women with fatherless or many fathered children.  You police your wife and daughter’s social circle and tell her:

“That girl is a slut.  Don’t have anything to do with her.  If the others want her to be with them, you are not to be with them. I forbid it”

And you get the men in your social circle to do the same thing, so your women get multiple independent authorities telling them this. And make sure the word “Slut” is used. If you want to keep your daughter off the pole, tell her that women who are on the pole are filthy and dirty and she is to have nothing to do with them. Filth is infectious, both literally and metaphorically, and women are extremely vulnerable to metaphorical infection.

Social pressure works. Ideally all your wife’s circle should, like the social circle of Mormon women, be women who married young, focused on being a wife and mother first, and only worried about career later in life, after menopause. But failing that, should at least exclude any filth, sluts, and trash.

118 Responses to “Implementing Patriarchy without the state.”

  1. Vincente de la Paz says:

    Read the “Family Proclamation”, husband and wife in the Mormon church are equal

  2. […] week over at Jim’s. First he suggests steps for Implementing Patriarchy without the state. Obviously, following formalism, it’s best for everyone to have state enforcement of salutary […]

  3. Art says:

    It is a complicated game indeed. Instead of no consent being required we have pressure, leverage and other forms of coercion applied in order to get the consent. There is plenty of such leverage in the world where a woman can hardly survive on her own but not enough in the modern world.
    In the old days a man could enforce his will simply by threatening to cut off support. Today same threat carries a lot less weight.
    You seem to be saying that the problem is with men no longer willing to enforce patriarchy. I am pointing pout that they no longer have the tools to do so.

    • jim says:

      You guys keep worrying about economics. Economics is almost irrelevant, except that money can get you a foot in the door. For example if you are funding ballet, you get to hang out with ballerinas, and Trump famously funded beauty contests and got to hang out with beauty contestants. Money makes a huge difference to getting your foot in the door but once you have your foot in the door, forces come into play far more powerful than money.

      Sex is primary, money is secondary. If all eighteenth century men had to stop women from misbehaving was the threat of withdrawal of support, it would have had almost zero effect. Probably would have been counterproductive, as daughter would flounce off to be a guest or servant in a house containing an alarmingly unsuitable male.

      Conservative Muslims do a mighty good job of making their daughters wear bags over their heads. Mormons keep their girls from going out to work. Orthodox Jews make women second class to men, even as they send them out to work and sponge off them. Economics does not matter all that much in fertility and marriage, short of famine actually causing people to starve.

      There were plenty of jobs for women in the eighteenth century. Obviously it helps with patriarchy if women find it harder to get jobs than men, but it is not what makes a big difference.

      • Cavalier says:

        One must have a sufficient amount of money to support leisure (the search) and one’s necessities of life in the environment in which one means to stalk one’s prey. After that it’s all hand all day, just make sure to use sensible rule of thumb.

      • Art says:

        I am questioning whether patriarchy and modernity are campatible. For your examples you choose societies that refused to modernize: Amish and traditional Muslims.
        As for the orthodox Jews, there are two distinct groups. One is similar to the Amish, and they don’t send their women to work. The other one consists of women and men who chose for themselves a certain lifestyle for religious reasons.

        If I understood you correctly, you believe there is no relationship between the decline of patriarchy and the concurrent technological developments that provided women with a greater degree of independence.
        You think the two are just coincidental?

        • jim says:

          There is no coincidence. Women have been emancipated before.

          You think this that this is the first emancipation in history because everyone is descended from patriarchal peoples. But that is not because women were never emancipated until the technological revolution, it is because people who emancipated women vanished from history. Their population declined, they became militarily weak and economically backward, they were conquered or overrun. Often their men were killed, their children were killed, and their women enslaved by patriarchal outsiders.

  4. Art says:

    While women may not be competent with weapons and more generally violence, I don’ see how that is important with so many other game-changing technologies and technological products that women are reasonably competent at using and consuming.
    Things like household appliances and pre-cooked meals, modern transportation, birth control, computers to name just a few.
    For women these are all game-changing technologies, and much more so than for men.
    They empowered women to leave home, to safely move around autonomously, and to be productive in the outside world.
    Until recently housekeeping was a full time job and there were very few occupations women could be productive at.
    In that world traditional patriarchy was the natural order as it was the only viable option. But that world is gone.
    In the world of modern technology and high specialization one should expect women to become more autonomous, and men to lose the skills that make them self-reliant and capable of surviving in the wild.
    These consequences may not be desirable but they may be inevitable. If you propose a solution, it should address the causes.
    Ideology is not changing the world. Technology is. Ideology follows, fitting to what is already there.

    As for female consent, I recall that some time back you painted the picture of ancestral society where sex typically happens without female consent.
    Am I misreading you?

    • jim says:

      While women may not be competent with weapons and more generally violence, I don’ see how that is important with so many other game-changing technologies and technological products that women are reasonably competent at using and consuming.

      Power does not come from toasters and dishwashers, but from the capability to punish and reward.

      As for female consent, I recall that some time back you painted the picture of ancestral society where sex typically happens without female consent.Am I misreading you?

      Women and sex are complicated. Until quite recently the norm was marriage through sale and abduction, or often something of both – if you had already abducted the bride, the bride price was apt to come cheaper. Women liked it that way and a wife was required to sexually gratify her husband.

      But if a wife unenthusiastically sexually gratifies her husband, he is not going to like it much and she is unlikely to become pregnant by him, while if she enthusiastically gratifies someone else behind his back …

      Hence it was and is very important to men that his wife enthusiastically gratifies him. Hence no amount of patriarchy, however extreme, can substantially diminish the overwhelming power possessed by a woman, even if she is chained spread eagle to a dungeon wall. Thus even when marriage was by purchase or abduction, it was still very important for a man to please a woman.

      • M says:

        Thank you, Jim. I am trying my hand at putting these words to fictional effect.

      • Art says:

        Your response suggests that you think of “empowerment” as power over other people. That is not what I meant at all.
        What I mean is the power over self. Ability to safely travel without male escort, provided by modern transportation technology. Modern machinery and high level of specialization that opens up the opportunity to offer marketable skills that don’t require muscle power or advanced analytical ability. Dishwashers and such are empowering because they free up the time that would otherwise be consumed by household tasks.
        That is point I would like you to address.

        Searched your blog to find the exact words I am taking issue with:
        “When our ancestors first came down from the trees … Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that women got any opportunity to consent to sex or refuse sex.”
        From your response I cannot tell whether you are affirming it or qualifying it as more complicated than stated.

        • jim says:

          Searched your blog to find the exact words I am taking issue with:
          “When our ancestors first came down from the trees … Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that women got any opportunity to consent to sex or refuse sex.”
          From your response I cannot tell whether you are affirming it or qualifying it as more complicated than stated.

          Qualifying it as more complicated than stated. Human female anatomy has a very effect defense against involuntary impregnation, and in this sense consent matters. On the other hand, the lips of the cervix are apt to be thrown open for any male that demonstrates the capacity to dominate them, and coercively compelling them to submit to the sexual act is a very effective demonstration of domination.

          Recollect my depiction of the difference between male and female desire: When a man looks at a woman’s breasts, he is thinking of having sex with her. When a woman shit tests a man, she is thinking of submitting to his sexual demands.

          So on the one hand, throughout most of history, women have generally been compelled to engage in sex with one man, and forbidden to engage in sex with other men, on the other hand, it still very important to men that women like it, which gives women so much power as to impair family formation even in the most patriarchal of societies.

          Observe the standard rape fantasy, where the woman strenuously objects, but nonetheless orgasms uncontrollably – a fantasy that is the same in the fantasies of both men and women.

  5. Art says:


    Two points you may want to address:

    1. Feminism was made possible by technology which really did empower women. The technology is not going away.

    2. Much of the natural male behavior appears to be driven by the desire to attract women. That makes no sense if in the ancestral environment female consent was irrelevant.

    • jim says:

      1. I don’t think technology empowered women. When mixed police teams go up against hostiles, the women run away. Even if a woman has a gun, she is easily intimidated into not using it. Plus we regularly saw women emancipated in collapsing civilizations time after time, even when the main weapon was a big heavy sword. Plus women simply rather like being beaten, raped, and enslaved. Would not matter if they all carried chain guns, they lack the will to use them.

      2. Consent is never irrelevant, and I never said it was. Even in the most patriarchal of societies, even where woman are absolutely property and their owners can do anything they like, kill them, torture them, burn them alive, even where marriage by sale or marriage by abduction is the norm, women by nature still have all the power. In pretty much every post on patriarchy I have said that in the comments, often repeatedly. The harshest patriarchy we can impose merely evens the scales a little bit. That is why women like social orders that disempower them. They have so much power that it disrupts male investment in reproduction. Who is going to have more children. A slave girl or a female CEO? So natural selection gives us women whose resistance to rape and enslavement is … complex, ambiguous, self defeating, and a little seductive.

  6. Dividualist says:

    >Women are extremely vulnerable to social pressure and the threat of social exclusion.

    Given that Americans tend to be afraid of that far more than Europeans, does that mean that American values got more feminized. Recently SSCers are discussing the effects of social stigma had on divorce in the US. Frankly, I could not care less about social stigma, that would be like the tenth of my worries in such a case. Now that you mention it these things really do sound feminine to me. A man does not really say e.g. society disapproves of being fat. A man is more to the point and says Joe called me a fat pig yesterday. Not vague concepts like society. Similarly, I think I wrote about this before, other typical American terms that sounds like something men borrowed from women and maybe resulted in men thinking like women are: horrifying, outrageous. Again, it seems to suggest that if X is outrageous it is not in itself bad but more like you are socially expected to condemn it.

    I think one thing is easier here in Europe that we don’t tend to have huge social lives. My wife has like 5 friends, living all over the world map, most are mothers or the kind of sad spinsters who would at this point at 37 would be willing to marry any pig that would get them pregnant and behave like a halfway okay dad. Which means, negative examples are good examples too.

    But in my experience these things sort themselves out because when we had our child and thus no going out, no fun, the single and fun loving girls stopped asking her out as she would refuse all going out events, and then she would make new friends at the playground.

  7. Jack Highlands says:

    Jim, you’ll likely be preparing a separate entry soon on Vault 7, but I’ll say here it looks a bit of a Reichstag Fire in its own right. He should be able to clobber those fifth columns in the CIA with this stuff. (Ricky Vaughan on Twatter: “So let me get this straight. The new leaks show that CIA can/does hack servers and make it look like Russia did it?”)

    Also: why the fuck aren’t any of us codgers here talking about Based Stick Man (who by the way is 41 himself)?

  8. peppermint says:

    The biggest problem with flogging all the professors and judges is that some of them are women. The solution is to flog their husbands instead, or, if they don’t have husbands, flog every man they’ve slept with over the past year.

  9. IDentifiable Friend says:

    At a time of mass immivasion, self-neutering such as joining a monastery or nunnery or priestly order of the Catholic church is just a type of suicide.

    • jim says:

      Saint Paul’s prescription that Bishops should set a good example by presiding over monogamous patriarchal families was wise and right, and the Catholic Church’s policy that the elite should fail to reproduce was harmful to civilization.

      Titus:1 (Saint Paul’s letter to Titus)

      5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
      6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
      7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
      8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
      9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
      10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
      11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.

      Not a big fan of Jews, you will notice.

      Saint Paul gives essentially the same prescription in his first letter to Timothy:
      1 Timothy:3

      2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
      3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
      4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
      5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
      6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
      7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
      8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
      9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
      10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
      11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
      12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

      Saint Paul twice prescribes in the clearest possible terms a clergy that is for the most part married, monogamous, patriarchal, and biologically fruitful.

      • IDentifiable Friend says:

        I agree with you on 3 out of the 4. Yes to the married, patriarchal, and fruitful.

        In fact, these are the requirements in the Levitical priesthood also, if you refer back to the Law of Moses.

        But a full NO to monogamy. Due to bad translation, it looks like Paul is mandating one (and only one) wife for a bishop, deacon, etc. But in Greek it is more obvious; the word heis/mia does mean “one”, but in the same sense that “echt” is used in Hebrew, and “eine” used in German; that is, it is used identical to the English partical “a”. So read it again: “Let the bishop be husband of a wife”. This changes the tone entirely. The bishop isn’t LIMITED to one wife; this is a minimum requirement, the bishop must have AT LEAST one wife.

        Remember, the high priest of Israel had to already be married and fruitful when he was appointed; by the regulation says that he must also marry a virgin of his own people when he is raised to office. So the high priest was required to be, not monogamous, but polygamous. Not an option. It is in the rules.

        Monogamy is a lie from the pit of Hell, and it led directly to the cuckening of Christianity as fully expressed by the Akathist hymns and the frustration of Chrysostom, which he vented against “Judaizers”. This ostrich in the sand approach allowed strong, patriarchal Islam to rise, easily conquering the cucked Christians. The Protestants and Puritans restored Patriarchy to some degree, ending the right of Prima Nocte (even if it was informal and most beta males were blind to it) Chrysostum and friends wouldn’t allow the Church to be reformed from within, so they gave the Middle East to Mohammed. Now the daughters of the Vikings are lusting and panting after the men in turbans; the Protestant swing toward Patriarchy has swung back to Catholic feminism and cunt worship.

        • IDentifiable Friend says:

          In another reference to the Greek, Paul is explicit that men are polygamous, while women must be monagamous. In English he says “Let every husband have his own wife, and let every wife have her own husband”. In Greek, the word for “own” is different in each case. In the case of the husband, having his own wife is like having his own car or rake or house… nothing limits him to one. On the other hand, when the women has her “own” husband, the word used is like that of being a citizen of a city; a city has MANY citizens. Yes, the city of her citizenship is her own; but it is not her own exclusively.

          • Cavalier says:

            Very interesting.

          • Eli says:

            Interesting indeed.

            Mistranslations happened in other places, going all the way to the Qumran community and, possibly, all the way to Maccabean times. In “thou shall want for thy neighbor what thou want for thyself.” R. Yeshua (Jesus) misunderstood the meaning of the (old) Semitic word “reya” (or “reyekha”), which was understood by him (and many others, like R. Akiva) in a very generic sense of “neighbor” (or “your neighbor,” in case of reyekha”).

            In fact, the word originally means “fellow pasturer,” as ancient south Israelite (e.g. Judah) tribes were shepherds, like all the Amorites. Pretty similar to Bedouins, including having, what ibn Khaldun refers to, strong asabiyah.

            Anyway, the pshat (simple meaning) is “fellow” and not the all-inclusive, diversity loving “neighbor.”

            My point here is that such mistranslation was useful when it came to proselytizing, and it’s especially notable how, given Paul’s desire to throw out Law of Moses, such misunderstanding stuck, but it was not the original meaning. The proper intent was to be kind to the members of one’s community, fellow followers of same custom and law.

            Going back to the topic of monogamy vs polygyny: it’s easy to arrange for more female production relative to male, by doing sperm sorting. Such devices are on the market, relatively cheap, and are in heavy use in husbandry, including in milch cow breeding. This technology is above 95% effective. Hence, any destabilizing effect of polygyny (which is mostly due to deficit of females) can be removed thanks to modern tech, without need for abortions.

            • jim says:

              Hence, any destabilizing effect of polygyny (which is mostly due to deficit of females) can be removed thanks to modern tech, without need for abortions.

              But in a polygynous society, people are not going to use that technology, or they will use it for the reverse purpose. They will want sons.

              • Eli says:

                Alas, it looks like you’re correct. I will think further, whether there are any sane arrangements that can turn it into a workable solution, but it appears to be a nontrivial matter. I welcome suggestions. Perhaps, if brides are bought from father at a price no less than a 15 years worth living expense (100k or 150k, say) ? I’ve already read somewhere that, in the West, statistically, well off men/engineers beget more sons (whether there is some biological switch within a woman that triggers selection for boys or it’s some other mechanism, it isn’t clear). Maybe, if a woman is bought from father, she should also be permitted and obligated to care for the father in his old age — maybe that would do it? Either way, I still see some rationing of women, given how unequal the wealth and earning power between men is.

            • Anonymous says:

              >Mistranslations happened in other places, going all the way to the Qumran community and, possibly, all the way to Maccabean times. In “thou shall want for thy neighbor what thou want for thyself.” R. Yeshua (Jesus) misunderstood the meaning of the (old) Semitic word “reya” (or “reyekha”), which was understood by him (and many others, like R. Akiva) in a very generic sense of “neighbor” (or “your neighbor,” in case of reyekha”).

              >In fact, the word originally means “fellow pasturer,” as ancient south Israelite (e.g. Judah) tribes were shepherds, like all the Amorites. Pretty similar to Bedouins, including having, what ibn Khaldun refers to, strong asabiyah.

              What in the name of Thor are you talking about? While it is true that in the original proto-Hebrew the root-verb “rea” does indeed mean fellow shepherd, by the time the Bible was written it has already meant “companion” or “neighbor” or “fellow”, given Israelite society was settled for centuries by then. Take, for instance, Jeremiah 29:23:

              “For they have done outrageous things in Israel; they have committed adultery with their neighbors’ wives [neshei re’eihem], and in my name they have uttered lies—which I did not authorize. I know it and am a witness to it,” declares the Lord.”

              Do you think that this makes sense in the context of, specifically, “fellow shepherds”?

              >My point here is that such mistranslation was useful when it came to proselytizing, and it’s especially notable how, given Paul’s desire to throw out Law of Moses, such misunderstanding stuck, but it was not the original meaning. The proper intent was to be kind to the members of one’s community, fellow followers of same custom and law.

              Grow up, it’s the current year. Jews should’ve embraced Christianity 2,000 years ago. One could say that both Christianity and Bolshevism are Judeo-Globalism; to this I’ll rejoin that not all Judeo-Globalisms are alike. A global Jewish-derived faith is superior to global infusion of ethnic Jewish blood.

        • lalit says:

          What about the theory that says that monogamy increases trust between males since it reduces the competition between them for females.

          Another theory claims that monogamy guarantees a woman for almost all males and causes greater investment in the tribe on the part of men. Absent monogamy, it is claimed that that most men will be wifeless and childless which will lead to high crime as well as betrayal by childless/womanless males to neighboring tribes.

          Are you by any chance talking about polygamy for some (read very few) selected men and monogamy for everyone else?

          • james says:

            Polygyny for the elite warrior class maybe given the demands and risks of warfare?

            Severely limited by various factors. Acquiring multiple wives even for the elite should be exponentially difficult in terms of opportunity. 2nd wife 10x more difficult 3rd wife 30x more difficult and so on.

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              Polygyny for whoever can afford it, obviously. And since it is patriarchy, the father decides if he wants a son-in-law who is weaker than himself, but will join his household and become a loyal follower, or if the father is trying to curry favor with someone more powerful than himself. Basically any man who can afford it and who wants it, does it. In real life that ends up being about 10% of men have an extra wife, 90% of men have 1. The number of eunuchs and complete sexual losers is about identical in monogamous and polygamous societies.

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              No need to MAKE it more difficult; unless a man is very high status or otherwise specially gifted, each extra wife does make it harder for him to acquire another.

              • james says:

                There are cases of men acquiring multiple wives even if he cannot afford them. Reducing some of them to beggars.

                It needs to be impossible for the rest and very difficult for the elite so that the inherent instability of such a society which manifests as higher violence and various forms of crimes does not manifest itself.

                It should not be monetary but purely the opportunity to do so.

                A society not dominated by monogamy is not a civilized and stable society.

            • peppermint says:

              …which means men will compete with each other to get more wives and any man who isn’t getting extra wives but trying to build the future for White children is basically fucking stupid

              • IDentifiable Friend says:

                Competing for wives is much better than competing for sloppy seconds, dirty thirds, and other female trash.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            lalit, that theory is pure bunk. I refer you to Artisanal Toad’s article on the matter.

            If anything, polygamy increases cohesion between men. Just because a man is married, doesn’t mean you can’t make him into a son-in-law.

            The so called “trust between men” isn’t due to monogamy, it is due to Feudalism selecting for beta males who are easily cuckolded by the lord of the manor taking the virginity of every female. Every time some “wild” men who don’t have this selection pressure breed into the “high trust” population, that population has a burst of growth and patriarchy. So called “high trust” is actually “gullibility”.

            • lalit says:

              @Mycroft Jones, What percentage of men would be wifeless/childless under your system? It seems the answer is about 10% based on your earlier posts. 10% of marriageable men who are not invested in society! For the US, this would be about 10 million men. And no women for them to bang or to game or to pay for prostitution as the alphas have wifed up the lot of them (In polygamy all women are married and this will probably kill prostitution). So these 10 million men have no sexual release either. You don’t believe crime will shoot up due to this?

              Or are you claiming that the 10% of men are low IQ, gutless losers anyway who could not plan their way out of a paper bag, let alone a bank heist or rape or some such petty crime? Is this your essential thesis?

            • Mediocre IQ White Nationalist says:

              >Feudalism selecting for beta males who are easily cuckolded by the lord of the manor taking the virginity of every female.

              I thought we decided this was a myth

              • IDentifiable Friend says:

                The idea that Prima Nocte was a formally recognized legal thing, yes, that is a myth… unless you look to the Ottoman Empire.

                But the reality of prima nocte is that the nobility fucked around with whatever peasant girl they liked, but the serf men didn’t get to marry until they were almost 30… and if the girl wasn’t a virgin, they couldn’t complain, or they didn’t get any pussy at all. And yes, they did keep it somewhat discreet, but the historical record is pretty clear.

            • peppermint says:

              > herp derp countersignal civilized behavior because the best thing to be is a nigger with lots of bitchez and only the stuff the übermänn can make for himself with his hands
              > no no we’ll use the all powerful point deer make horse state to force betas to kneel and cry in front of the few girls that aren’t taken by warlords who invent gunpowder but can’t stop literal milotary invasions because none of those insects even care about living

            • Steve Johnson says:

              “If anything, polygamy increases cohesion between men.”

              Which is why Arab armies destroy Western armies every time they clash.

              “The so called “trust between men” isn’t due to monogamy, it is due to Feudalism selecting for beta males who are easily cuckolded by the lord of the manor taking the virginity of every female.”

              Right, they cuckold the betas who pass on their beta genes through proximity to the children.

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                Just like today, the alphas fucked them, then when the peasant girl hit the wall, he gave her to the beta serfs who bred them. Same as today.

            • james says:

              Meanwhile the polygynous islamic and african society remain violent shitholes

        • viking says:

          I have had the thought that this a wife in every betas pot leads to betas out breeding alphas and may be out problem. But it also led to some good outcomes, which jim and cucks stress.A fully functioning beta civilization was able to restrain the excesses of alphas and channel resources into children. This is probably the most efficient use of human capital.Alphas clicks dont only keep betas down they keep unallied alphas down and lets face it a lot of betas have qualities we need.
          But we have the female desire for alphas, its true we can patriarch them and we can enforce betas adhere to alpha standards- game and masculine. But we still have all those beta babies, to some extent the alphas end up with the alpha women and their children outcompete but its not enough.On the other hand a nation of alphas might be unstable unless oppressively policed. crispr might be a solution but is a long way from being able to alpha a beta baby

          • peppermint says:

            Alpha and beta are social roles and beta behavior is much more prevalent today because White men go to school as children.

            Aristocrats are supposed to naturally out breed peasants and slowly replace peasant genes.

            • Cavalier says:

              Which by definition failed to happen in the Hajnal countries.

              • peppermint says:

                Yeah, it’s pretty well documented who married who in England between 1066 and 1966, aristocrats had more kids. Problem arose when Jews started offering cash to aristocratic children to marry in, eventually getting Disraeli to Churchill to destroy them Empire before importing migrants to implement the final solution to the English Question.

                • Cavalier says:

                  I don’t pretend to be an expert on this subject, but I’m pretty sure it was the upper-middle-class yeomanry who dominated the Darwinian landscape.

                • Cavalier says:

                  In fact I think hdbchick, or maybe Jayman, said that the reason for Cavalier exceptionality—for example—is due to some unique environmental factors that prevailed in some select regions nominally considered to be within the Hajnal line: namely, that the Cavalier lords really did have the highest fitness.

  10. TW says:

    I must admit I’m fortunate. I married a Catholic girl who had very traditional sentiments. She had only been with one guy before me. We now have nine kids (7 boys, 2 girls) and she stays home and home schools. We attend a Latin Mass and if any girl there skirt is too short or top bares too much it gives my wife and oldest daughte fits. Since age 2 my oldest daughter has expressed a desire to be a nun (a traditional order with a full habit). I am definitely encouraging it. Boys have all expressed desire for religious life so since I live within a couple of hours of a Bendictine Monastery I’m encouraging that too. Wife can’t stand to take kids to public stores do to all of the immodest.

    In some ways I have been blessed to have what you wrote about. Good stuff. Those who aren’t – make sure your sons at least understand what they need in a wife – but good luck to them finding a wife who is not corrupted. Odds are if you have daughters and not protected them from the culture they are corrupted.

    That’s why it’s best to get married to young woman who hasn’t been on the pole and raised with a traditionalist sentimentality. Find and join a traditionalist Catholic parish. It’s not a guarantee but it increases the odds. And there will be parishioners there who have friends and family from other parts of the country that can network and find a girl with a more traditionalist mindset and cultivate it in her.

    • peppermint says:

      …if the other daughter has seven kids as well you’ll be better off than the atheists who have 2.4 kids each of whom has 2.4 kids lolol

    • IDentifiable Friend says:

      You have a large family and you are happy that your children are going to neuter themselves? That is why I took my kids out of the Catholic church, and now I’m in the process of deleting my wife from the Catholic church too. None of that doctrine of death.

    • TW says:

      Sex. The thing you chose to focus on in my comment is sex. One of the tools the global managerial elites control the population is loosening of the passions and lust is one of the easiest to inflame. If you want a happy life you have to cultivate the virtues, a big part of which is controlling the passions. One of the biggest problems in the West is a lack of self-control and the abandonment of cultivating virtue.

      Historically monks and nuns have contributed a lot to the culture around them. Monks preserved the classical writings of antiquity. Religious started the ideas of hospitals and universities and made the parochial education system in this country what it was before it was destroyed. They channeled that sexual energy into other productive and fruitful projects that greatly benefited the families around them. They are also a constant living reminder to return ones focus away from the things of the world and to God, Who is the world’s final cause.

      The celibacy requirement for religious is a loving sacrifice for the greater good of a deeper intimacy with God and since God loves us in a sacrificial manner the religious life is a way of loving the way He does. You also see this in enough cultures around the world that it can be called universal. If you want to speak of self-neutering then the analogy better applies to contraception then taking a vow of celibacy for love of God.

      And a little scripture: 1 Cor 7:32-34 (Douay-Rheims)
      But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. [33] But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. [34] And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

      If you visit my parish or the monastery and see the families there you will note that as a group they are having children well above the minimal population rate. While I don’t have numbers I think I’m safe saying that areas that had booming religious also had booming populations. Prior to Vatican II religious life in the US was at a peak and the Catholic laity also had a very healthy family size. If the thing about religious life that bothers you is the celibacy and that it decreases the rate at which a population is having children I don’t see it. If anything it is contraception that’s the problem and that’s what you should be fighting against; in the US it wasn’t a booming religious life that destroyed growing native Catholic population – it was embracing contraception (and as the Catholic population began to decrease so did the religious communities). Just the fact that contraception is the chosen tool of the global elites to control the populations should tell you something; and which segment of the population has turned contraception into a sacred cow.

      Women who use contraception are much more likely to be sluts then women who don’t. (would prefer to bring this back around to the original topic of the post which I thought was a great post. Posts like this are one of the reasons I read here regularly as unfortunately these things are not being taught by Catholic priests and bishops and should be – but that’s a whole different can of worms).

      • Cavalier says:

        They didn’t focus on sex, they focused on fertility. Or, more precisely, the lack thereof. Darwinian death. You are pozzed beyond belief. “Genetic death for GAAAD.” Eck. Keep encouraging your kids to be lifelong celibates, you might as well just shoot them and yourself now and get your evolutionary demise over with sooner rather than later.

        • TW says:

          Darwinism. I don’t think in those terms but it does explain the responses. Too funny.

          What is GAAAD?

          • peppermint says:

            faggot cuck those kids are probably the priest’s anyway from your wife’s special penance sessions that’s why they’re interested in becoming priests themselves that or the priest have them a special confirmation leading them to want more at holy orders lol

      • jim says:

        Historically monks and nuns have contributed a lot to the culture around them. Monks preserved the classical writings of antiquity. Religious started the ideas of hospitals and universities and made the parochial education system in this country what it was before it was destroyed. They channeled that sexual energy into other productive and fruitful projects that greatly benefited the families around them. They are also a constant living reminder to return ones focus away from the things of the world and to God, Who is the world’s final cause.

        Smart people, members of the elite did this. And extinguished their smart genes. The country that led the industrial and scientific revolutions is the country that dissolved the monasteries and allowed married clergy.

        But Paul goes further. He, while recognizing that celibates, such as himself, can make a bigger contribution to the Church, requires married, fruitful, and patriarchal clergy, in order to set a good example.

        • TW says:

          Smart people, genes, Darwinism; this is a paradigm I haven’t bumped up against before on a topic like this and I haven’t decided what to make of it yet. There is another blogger I follow who thinks that the problems the West has run into today is an over intellectualization of the Faith and until we get back to a Faith of the hearth and heart will never be able to resist the forces that threaten to overwhelm the West; given the problems that are plaguing the Catholic Church these days that thought really strikes home. This Darwinian perspective strikes me as very materialistic but I want to give it more thought.

          I assume you are speaking of England when you mention the industrial and scientific revolutions; as I have studied the changes in the economic system in the West from feudalism to mercantism to capitalism to the managerialism we find ourselves under today I am of the mind that the restraints that the Church had put on our wounded natures were thrown off over time and the love of money was unleashed. I wonder how much the lending practices of the Jews were a factor in these economic changes. I wonder if this was also when the Catholic Church stopped teaching that She holds usury to be a mortal sin (ht to E Michael Jones – I’m also of the mind that this is what opened the door to the corruption of the Catholic Institutional Church). The timing of the industrial and scientific revolutions were not coincidental to these changes in economic practices. This too also strikes me as being materialistic and if so then am left wondering what does it profit a man to gain the world but lose his soul?

          In regards to St. Paul I can definitely see how you have arrived at your conclusion. As a Catholic it’s not enough for me to jettison Her discipline on the matter. A big factor for me would be what did the early Church practice and why. When I look at the Orthodox, who have a just claim to tracing their lineage back to the Apostles, while they allow married priests they only select bishops from unmarried clergy. Thus I lean more towards the thinking that the early Church in the West, for what they considered a good reason, decided that there was definitely wisdom in demanding celibacy for their priests and bishops.

          I would also like to add Revelation 14:4-5
          These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb: [5] And in their mouth there was found no lie; for they are without spot before the throne of God

          • jim says:

            In regards to St. Paul I can definitely see how you have arrived at your conclusion. As a Catholic it’s not enough for me to jettison Her discipline on the matter. A big factor for me would be what did the early Church practice and why. When I look at the Orthodox, who have a just claim to tracing their lineage back to the Apostles, while they allow married priests they only select bishops from unmarried clergy.

            Rome in the time of Saint Paul had a fertility crisis and a crisis of dysgenesis. People were not reproducing, and in particular and especially the elite was not reproducing. We today have a fertility crisis and a crisis of dysgenesis. People are not reproducing, and in particular and especially the elite is not reproducing.

            Restoration Anglicanism, which gave us the the scientific and industrial revolutions, had married clergy and discouraged monasteries and nunneries.

            • TW says:

              I can’t say I know enough about Rome’s fertility crisis in the 1st century to comment. I’m of the mind that the fertility crisis the West suffers today is in a large part brought about by wholesale acceptance of contraception. I would also point out that the Anglicans at 1930 Lambeth Conference were the first Christian denomination to step away from the belief that contraception was a grave sin. If your trying to say that married clergy would be a step towards reversing the present fertility crisis (and doing away with non-clerical religious orders) I would point out that here in the US prior to the 60’s not only was Catholic religious life booming but so was the native Catholic population as well.

              In regards to the ‘elites’ I don’t share your concern. It could be I’m not sure I fully understand what you are defining as elites; it seems that you are defining them as the smartest in a society. If so I must admit I never attributed the greatness of the West to them; that is I haven’t attributed the greatness of the West to the intellectual capacity of the ruling classes.

              I am starting to wonder if with all the talk from a Darwinian perspective that the smartest rise to the top and become the elites.

              • jim says:

                Condoms go back to the late bronze age. Sponges go back to the early iron age. Pulling out and having the girl finish you off with her breasts and mouth probably goes all the way back to the neolithic. When Japan legalized the pill, it did not make a whole lot of difference.

                Ideally the smartest should rise to the top and should have higher fertility. However it is frequently the case that the smartest do not rise to the top, and/or that the top has lower fertility. A common worst case is the gene shredder, that the smartest do rise to the top, but the top has lower fertility. Singapore is a good example of a gene shredder.

                Smart men in the US are reproducing, but smart women generally wind up as cat ladies.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Smart men are reproducing with Asian/African women. The resulting offspring aren’t the same as if the smart men were able to reproduce after their own kind.

    • Cavalier says:

      >get an (Irish/southern Italian) Catholic wife

      Lol, no, I think I’ll stick to ethnicities with histories of civilization.

      • Robert says:

        He has nine kids, something that I can’t say, putting the monk/nun debate aside, it looks to me like something is going right. In our current situation having an Irish wife with nine kids is a hell of a lot better than a german wife with one kid.

        • Cavalier says:

          If you’re going for a dip outside the West you might as well go to Czechland, Slovakia, Slovenia, or west Poland.

  11. vxxc2014 says:

    Burn the schools and courthouses.

    You should probably organize first but I’ve mentioned that already.

    I don’t have a daughter so it’s not my problem. Directly anyway.

    However if if helps let a good Bello Civil get going – or a bad one – and I’ll hold up my end of the deal.

    If one did have a daughter perhaps it would be a good idea for the courthouse and school to catch a bad case of Jewish Lightning the night she was born.

    • peppermint says:

      Go live in a small town, have to deal with starry eyed Harvard grads who accidentally didn’t end up teaching niggers but insist that their life’s mission is to save the niggers because all lives matter and slavery and the holocaust are the worst things ever in all of hsitory

  12. peppermint says:

    “That girl is a slut. Don’t have anything to do with her. If the others want her to be with them, you are not to be with them. I forbid it”

    haha, some day I’ll get out of the Northeast and find that every girl everywhere is the same but the ones who didn’t grow up around niggers don’t just say that niggers need to be given money and dated because they’re oppressed but magnificent beautiful beasts but actually go ahead and do it

  13. Koanic says:

    See Oholibah in Ezekiel 23.

    Biblically, they aren’t sluts. They’re whores.

    • Dave says:

      Biblically there’s no difference. If you go into a room and do something with a woman, the moral value of that act does not change if you then give her (or she gives you) pieces of paper with pictures of dead presidents on them.

      • Koanic says:

        You obviously didn’t read the story. God makes it quite clear that fucking around for free is much worse.

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          Right. If you pay a woman for sex, the Bible calls that marriage (ketubah, marriage contract). Giving it away for free is indeed much worse.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Exodus 21:10 specifies that married women are entitled to a salary of food, clothing and sexual congress. Somehow this transaction was labelled whoredom while true whoredom was lightly passed over. Perhaps it was the courtly love junk. The Germanic peoples in Roman times, punished adultery with death. Somehow, around the time of Chrysostum, when Christianity was at its most cucked (even more than now), the Germanic kings thought nothing of being bastards, as many kings from that time named “The Bastard” attests.

            • Jack Highlands says:

              Pretty good bet that, with the ancient Germanics as with medieval Germanics as with all farming and herding peoples since the dawn of agriculture, the probability and degree of punishment for adultery varies directly with the social status differential of the two men:

              P ∝ S(adulterer) – S(cuckold)

              • Jack Highlands says:


                P ∝ S(cuckold) – S(adulterer)

                Anyway, yawl knew what I meant.

    • jim says:

      Ezekiel 23 says it is wrong for a woman to sleep with more than one man.

      Does not say it is wrong for a man to sleep with more than one woman.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Exodus 21:10 and 2 Samuel 12:8 also say that. The cucking of the church begin early on with the monogamy junk, which ties in with the even worse Courtly Love junk, and then that led to female suffrage, and prima nocte, and all that. Prima nocte may have have been actual law, it certainly was practiced under feudalism, but probably not acknowledged; the beta male serfs had to be kept somewhat in the dark so they didn’t revolt.

        • jim says:

          Exodus 21:7-1

          7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
          8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
          9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
          10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

          In other words, if you have sex with your slave girl, cannot resell her. She is stuck with you, and you are stuck with her. You can have as many women as you like, but she should only have one man.

          The main point of 2 Samuel 12 is that one can have many wives, and other men’s widows are fine, but may not covet another man’s wife.

        • Anonymous says:

          According to the OT, a married woman can fuck only her husband. A married man can fuck any woman who isn’t married. Thus, a married man can visit a prostitute or have a ONS with a non-married chick he picked at the bar.

          A married woman who fucks anyone but her husband is an adulteress. A non-married woman who fucks anyone is akin to a prostitute. Being a prostitute is allowed, but discouraged.

          Fucking a prostitute is allowed, and fucking a non-married temptress who isn’t taking any money (i.e a slut) is also allowed. But the latter is discouraged, because temptresses, unlike prostitutes, are prone to bring calamities. If you fuck a temptress, should be ready to marry her.

          An adulteress is a married woman who fucks someone who isn’t her husband, while an adulterer is someone who fucks a married woman who isn’t married to him.

  14. Robert says:

    I had partial success. I have a 19 year old who is married and pregnant. Her husband is a white Christian, but he isn’t ideal. Growing up she had no cable, I made her watch old movies and TV shows (Bing Crosby, little house), which she enjoyed. She went to our church’s private school (our church is conservative, probably 85% voted for Trump). I never allowed her to go to other peoples houses who I knew weren’t conservative. She had two close friends growing up, both came from intact households. I simply wouldn’t let her go to degenerates houses. Once she could drive I controlled it. The car wasn’t “her car” it was my car. I pushed her to get a job at a fast food place, which in hindsight was probably a mistake, it exposed her to a bunch of losers. I was always talking down on college, showing her girls who went away to college and came back worse off, also showing her girls who were married and with children. She went through a rebellion period, but her rebellion was to run off and get married, not to become degenerate. It is possible to do what Jim is saying, it just takes a shitload of work. Through all of this almost everyone around me was saying I was too strict, saying I was old fashioned. All I know is I will have grandchildren, and many of them won’t.

    • Cavalier says:

      “Through all of this almost everyone around me was saying I was too strict, saying I was old fashioned.”

      Too bad almost everyone around you was constantly and interminably undermining you.

      “All I know is I will have grandchildren, and many of them won’t.”

      Perfect is the enemy of good.

    • peppermint says:

      run off and get married is success. Who would be ideal, some middle management IT faggot who tries to cheat on her and refuses to get her pregnant and is going to divorce her?

    • viking says:

      I think you were more lucky than smart, and frankly the outcome is meh no offence but she doesnt sound like a beachhead of reaction. I went to more extreme measures and still failed.well its not over till its over but at 22 shes a feminist lefty.
      The cathedral infects every atom of our culture not only does that marinate the young it means you either have to reject the entire world or eventually you will get infected. a mountain homestead in north idaho was not enough in my case.

      • Cavalier says:

        Q: Why does Progressivism destroy new adherents while the elite, those living in the belly of the beast, go about their lives for the most part unscathed?

        A: Immunity.

        You tried isolation in the middle of nowhere, but obviously the isolation was going to end at some point, so all you succeeded in doing was making the ultimate sickness worse.

        My immunity is so honed and tuned and complete that I can watch anything, talk to anyone, live anywhere, and not be affected. I’m immunized to the point that the cultural poz doesn’t even elicit an emotional reaction except “I have better things to do with my time”.

        • viking says:

          youre on borrowed time cav, this is the crazy part the soros clintons are not going to be allowed to ruled liberia forever the no go zones are closing in

          • Cavalier says:

            Today was a very pleasant day. The skies were blue, the sun was bright, there was a light breeze, and it was nearly 70 degrees. I went swimming, this time just to lounge about. Yesterday I swam a kilometer and a half in an Olympic-sized pool at the city center. I then watched some golfers. I should probably learn to play. The last time I saw a Moslem was a month ago at KATL, concourse F. He was about three inches shorter than me and was wearing a dark gray suit. I nodded at him and he returned a small smile.

            The only reason I really care about any of this stuff is because I want a dozen and a half children by 4.5 different women, because I want those children to similarly propagate my bloodline, and because as a people we need higher fertility to make the world great as England once made America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand great.

            • Robert says:

              At we are trying to build patriarchy from the ground up. It may happen in fits and starts, but it certainly won’t happen unless we make it happen. I started it in large part because of what little support I received, even from my own family, the poz in man runs deep, it always has, you have to claw and fight it.

              • Cavalier says:

                An admirable goal. Let’s talk about your site.

                It looks like shit. The background is terrible. The font is wrong. The spacing is horrid. It displays a horrifying lack of aesthetic sense. Lack of taste is low-status. Download WordPress, at least.

                The title in my tab says “Home”; it should say “Knights of the West” or “KOW” or something.

                The pictures: the battle painting is kind of ghey, the graphic tee is a little comical, and you’re endorsing the Revolution for some reason. “Sacred honor” is a little too much—go with “form a strong community etc.” and leave it at that. The Celtic cross imagery is a little distateful, but if that’s your thing whatever. Christianity is dead, dude; you can try to revive it if you like but it’s like trying to reanimate Zeus’s dead corpse. Family is cool. The capstone in this site is what you show with Profession. Come on, man, some guy in camo bent over a drilling machine? This is your idea of a Profession™?

                I know you aren’t aiming for my demographic, but I can’t imagine your site being inspiring to those guys either. Fix your copy. “West” isn’t a cardinal direction, it’s a proper noun. It should be capitalized. Complete sentences would be super. I sometimes use sentence fragments in comments, but. I’m not trying to recruit anybody. And I just don’t give a damn.

                I hope that has been instructional to you. If you’re going to pimp out your site, at least have something worthy of pimping. You can smack her around a little bit but at the end of the day she has to be presentable.

                P.S. Spoiler alert: You say you’re “non-denominational”. Well, know that “non-denominationalism” is a stone’s throw away from Universal Unitarianism. Your Christianity is likely little more than a paint job or a fashion accessory.

    • Corvinus says:

      We appreciate your indoctrination of patriarchy. Well done, sir, well done.

  15. Glenfilthie says:

    If it can be said that the election of Trump is the result of rebellion against politically correct cuckoldry and sluttery – I would posit that guys like you Jim – and I’m one, in many ways – encourage the exact opposite rebellion that we would stamp out.

    To achieve what you suggest, our daughters cannot, under any circumstances, attend a public school – never mind college or university. Try and enforce that one in this age of female fighter pilots and CEO’s. Similarly their viewing and reading material would have to be strictly censored. Understand that if you try and discipline or punish your female for degenerate or harmful behaviour – you WILL have the law to contend with.

    My daughter was steeped in this asshattery of female empowerment. It hurts me to say this, but she was a stupid and difficult child. When she was in grade 3 the time outs and groundings were having no effect and she was being a monkey in class – so I finally spanked that little shit – and all hell broke loose! I had her menopausal cunt of a teacher threatening to sic family and social services on me. I had relatives do it too. People called me a child abuser and I was ostracized in certain circles.

    But it had a happy ending: my daughter went off to school, took a visual arts class at a no-name university in another city and became a hairy chested militant lesbian social justice warrior. We don’t speak.

    I dunno what the answer is boys. All I know is that what our gracious host advocates is much easier said than done.

    • John says:


    • Cavalier says:

      That’s hilarious and horrifying, equally and simultaneously. But it’s also obvious that your daughter was a bad egg, genetically prone to feral behavior whether exposed to Progressivism or not.

      I often wonder if there aren’t some rather excellent and useful selective effects of Progressivism; namely, that large swaths of behavior that were once tightly constrained by culture are now largely mediated by one’s inherent genetic tendencies.

      Anyway, sorry about your daughter. Maybe have a son this time around.

    • Cavalier says:

      P.S. Obviously if you enter your offspring into religious school, they will imbibe the religion. Obviously the nuns will come after for violating the tenets of their religious code. One of the reasons, probably the main reason, that Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and the Amish get away with what they get away is that they have basically no intersection with the mainstream culture and its state institutions. The nuns and the clergy of the Church simply don’t have any exposure to those people, never come in contact with them, and thus don’t grab their burning crucifixes and go after them.

      • peppermint says:

        No, it’s because Jews are protected by the elite, Amish take pains to ensure that they’re not seen as a threat and historically were protected by sympathetic WASP catladies who would occasionally visit and then write about how quaint they are, and Mormons fought a war with USG and control Utah and are obviously on the christcuck roadmap to destruction but make great foot soldiers of ZOG for now

      • viking says:

        Obviously you have not tried to raise children. This post is another nrx exit fantasy. Theres no exit its war or submit.

        • Cavalier says:

          There are literally millions of homeschoolers. They still exist because they totally fly under the radar. It isn’t exit, it’s parallel, invisible, informal institutions. The big problem is money. The big solution is skilled craftsmen: there aren’t any anymore.

          Waco will never happen again.

          • peppermint says:

            idgi what do homeschoolers need

            Also this one time I posted on gf’s mom’s facebook status about homeschooling that I’m glad she home schooled gf because like this and that and subtly implying that she would be a slut if she was school schooled, which of course women pick up on and boomers gotta countersignal lol

          • viking says:

            First I gotta say you nrx millenials when faced with your policy of watching the slow genocide of your people always reframe any suggestion of resistance as a low IQ rural militia scenario. I cant help notice how conveniently this excuses the failure of this generation to do what every generation of euroman has done for millennia- fight back.

            and waco will certainly happen again though its not how I would recommend taking down the cathedral though it might have a place and is certainly better than nothing.

            Home schooling is not a panacea, idaho was then at the forefront allowing homeschooled kids to take any classes or extracurricular activities they wished or none at all. Certainly it had a fairly decent HS community both in the liberal and religious camps neither of which I really identify. HS was one of the issues that led to my divorce.Cherry picking far fetched scenarios that worked a few times or might work is not a solution. They dont call it globalism universalism for nothing, you are not allowed to exit even if there really were anywhere left on earth to exit to. Sovereign nations with huge nuclear arsenals are not allowed autonomy. War will not always be an option as you point out its already a long shot. So the question becomes at what point do you “cavelier” decide you have nothing to lose and everything to gain and live up to your nom de plume

            • Cavalier says:


              I’m not a Millennial.

              »resistance as a low IQ rural militia scenario

              Only low-IQ rural dimwits think they’re a match for USG security forces. If there were ever a legitimate internal threat, 10 thousand USG loyalists + USG tech and logistics is what it would take to put down a popular uprising of 10 million minuteman LARPers. Needless to say, you aren’t going to get 10 thousand, let alone 10 million.


              Frankly, I think homeschoolers are stupid and dangerous and a massive liability and I would never associate with anyone who calls their education system “homeschooling”. I use it as one example of how a bunch of mouthbreathers, largely muh constitution christcucks, have managed to privatize memetic transmission and effectively secede from the second-most pernicious and pervasive Cathedral institution: public schooling. “Homeschooling” is allowed to exist because the mouthbreathers have successfully wielded enough political power in their local backwaters, well away from Cathedral power centers and well away from elite consciousness. Perhaps most of their success is attributable to the fact that the elite have increasingly seceded themselves.

              »at what point do you live up to your nom de plume

              When I can win.

              • Sam J. says:

                “…Only low-IQ rural dimwits think they’re a match for USG security forces…”

                Then why hasn’t the USG conquered Afghanistan and Iraq?

                • Cavalier says:

                  USG conquered most of the world in the early-mid 20th century. Nobody’s conquered it since. Do the math.

                • jim says:

                  The USG has lost every war in recent times, largely because the Blue empire of the consulates is more frightened of the Red Empire of the bases than it is frightened of external enemies.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The USA didn’t exactly conquer the world in 1945 either. Could’ve kept the British and French empires as puppets – dismantled them without keeping the spoils. Conceded parity to the USSR, which was actually much weaker. The USSR then took their Chinese puppet and much of the Mid East off of them – land that was actually valuable.

                  Of course this can be explained by State Department politicking etc. They were on the Soviet side to some extent. But clearly not entirely, given what they did to the Soviets later. Mostly they were trapped in an anti-imperialist memplex they could not find any way out of.

        • jim says:

          I have raised children. They turned out pretty good.

    • Alfred says:

      The biggest success I’ve had so far was telling my girl to quit her studies. She didn’t like it anyway so that helped. The change I’ve since seen in her is profound; from weekly breakdowns to happy. Modern girls really do see the state as their (dysfunctional) patriarch.

    • jay says:

      I think its better that your troublesome daughter remain childless.

      You can’t save everyone.

      Not everyone deserves to have generations to succeed them.

    • A.B. Prosper says:

      Its self correcting Glen. Taken at face value he TFR in the US is at European levels now, just hit a new low lowest recorded since 1909 around 1.85 apparently slightly lower than Sweden!

      In the end only the Right wing, the Religious and the stupid will breed.

      This corrects several problems all at once, society can’t support female suffrage anyway, It also can’t support the soul killing, species threatening technology we insist on building .

      In time, we revert anyway to older forms that work.

      That said the Patriarchy could be brought back with one very simple legal change , Married or not children always default to the father baring a conviction for felony violence on the mother or child by the father desertion or extreme neglect .

      This will put a fast end to baby daddies sine they” either have to care for them or go to jail and single mommies who will be extremely rate at this point

      This won’t happen easily if at all since women will go ballistic and more importantly the Cathedral needs warm bodies. With 40% of White children much less other groups born outside wedlock this would brick the fertility rate , the TFR would probably drop to 1.0 or so maybe lower.

      This level isn’t survivable in any form and the most important thong about the Cathedral is its brittle, Less people in a short time means a much smaller older, population and much less money. It can’t run without suckers Its not much fun to rule an empty land filled with old people

      Also more importantly, it doesn’t appear to be reversible outside of collapse to savagery . Knowing how the Cathedral “thinks” they’ll try to stall as long as possible

  16. Ted Nuisance says:

    Sluts… I live in Toronto… Try forbidding your women from socializing with sluts and she’ll be socializing with the ghosts of your grandmothers and a spayed cat. On the plus side, Toronto’s level of gun violence is rapidly catching up to a medium-safe American city! So there’s that! Before you ask – yes, it’s a black thing.

  17. Mycroft Jones says:

    Bravo, epic post. Well condensed.

  18. […] Implementing Patriarchy without the state. […]

    • Randy says:

      Why not just become Moslem?

      • peppermint says:

        Not gonna work m8 some White men have tried they don’t get the hot White women whose parents were freedom riders or the children of freedom riders to ride their dicks

        • Randy says:

          Hmm, I’m not exactly sure what you are saying here. lol. My point was sardonic. If your world-view revolves around muscular patriarchy we have one right on our doorstep begging for conversos. Imagine how that would mindfuck globalists if Europids just said, okay, “We be Moslems now” and declared war on usury and all the (((rest)))?

      • peppermint says:

        Countersignaling your people and cucking never works, women can sense cuckoldry and are repelled by it. What does work is raising your status by bullying some blubbering poor sap you call racist.

        Which implies that blubbering when called racist is antisocial behavior we need to stamp out by cutting off people who grovel to SJWs, and also implies that getting liberals to actually interact with niggers is the best way to ensure they get nothing out of being liberals.

      • jim says:

        That is a very good question, so good I am posting an article on it.

      • Dave says:

        This comment lists many of the real problems with Islam (and sexism isn’t one of them):

Leave a Reply